Our View: May cooler heads douse this inferno

Thursday

Jul 10, 2014 at 12:15 AMJul 10, 2014 at 12:16 AM

Fire protection district meetings tend to be uneventful, we dare say yawn-producing affairs. Consider the one in Washington Tuesday regarding Mike Vaughn’s future as fire chief there the exception to that rule.

Vaughn’s job may have been saved at the tense and often angry gathering, though it was hard to tell. If so, it was only because a quorum of the five-member board could not be mustered to take a legitimate, binding vote. Two members were absent because they no longer occupy their seats after it was discovered that their terms actually expired last year. Another, the board’s firefighter representative and a Vaughn supporter, walked out of the meeting, thereby preventing a valid vote by the two remaining members.

That may be all it takes to keep Vaughn around. If a vote is not taken by month’s end — and that appears likely, given the difficulty of filling those two seats in the next three weeks with anybody who knows anything about the situation, the potential need to replace a third with a reported-if-not-yet-confirmed resignation on Wednesday, and the possibility that any special meeting could be a no-quorum repeat — Vaughn’s current contract automatically renews and rolls over for another three years.

Suffice it to say, it’s not the best or most satisfying of situations. Beyond that, allow us these clarifications/observations not so much on who’s right and who’s wrong but on the process used to get to this point and the potential ramifications.

First, board members were eager to emphasize that it was incorrect to suggest Vaughn had been ousted, that only an informal straw vote in an executive session had been taken. That the terms of two of the four in the majority wanting to make a management change had ended nine months earlier was “an oversight,” we’re told. Hmmm.

Second, the Washington Fire Department is something of a hybrid, a private not-for-profit that contracts with small local governments to provide fire protection with volunteer firefighters and paid paramedics. It’s really just another quasi-government organization (as we’ve seen with area economic development efforts) that takes public money — in this case about $600,000 annually from Washington taxpayers alone — but doesn’t have to abide, legally if not ethically speaking, by public rules and the kind of transparency they require. All in all about 70 percent of the fire district’s revenues are government generated, with most of the rest coming from fees charged for ambulance service. Ultimately, the board wisely reconsidered closing this meeting to the public.

Third, the board majority may have its reasons for wishing to part ways but they’re not sharing them beyond saying there is a “difference of philosophies,” which is vague to the point of meaningless. Again on Tuesday, they refused to explain their motivations despite repeated demands to do so, justifying that position by saying this is a “personnel matter” that they’re not permitted to address publicly. It’s a common excuse. While the law allows that silence, it does not mandate it. In our experience it’s the stance taken on the advice of cautious, always lawsuit-conscious attorneys. That’s their job, we suppose, though here we’re talking about an at-will employee and the difference between firing somebody and not renewing a contract — for cause or not — that is ending.

Fourth, it seems obvious the board underestimated the public backlash regarding a popular fire chief whose stock only went up with his exemplary performance during the Nov. 17 tornado. In the span of days, some 1,345 signatures were gathered on a petition supporting him and denouncing this board. Even if the locals don’t know all the facts, their frustration is appreciated in a community that has had three high-profile administrator disputes in the last four years — a former city administrator who left with a sizeable severance after seven weeks on the job, a police chief who departed under questionable circumstances, and now the fire chief — with the public told in each of those otherwise unique situations they were not allowed to know the details.

As such, their calls for accountability are not misplaced. There have been some calls for city government to take over five service. We’d advise caution and consultation with other municipalities as to what impact public safety pensions alone have had on their budgets.

Fifth, we’re familiar with people on both sides of this matter and it’s a shame it has come to this, because they have contributed a great deal to the community. That includes the board members, who are volunteers that no doubt could live without this grief. Washington came together following the tornado, and it needs to stay together during the rebuilding. Even if Vaughn stays, some relationship repairs look to be necessary.

Finally, the most important issue here is that Washington-area residents have quality fire and emergency medical protection when they need it. The board may have a department mutiny on its hands if Vaughn goes, with others promising to follow him out the door. Cooler heads must do what’s necessary to prevent that from happening.